Error in the Help Centre's Explanation of the Strict Cancellation Policy

[Louise0]

[Ali40]

[Louise0]

Yes, that's exactly what I used to see.  But now when I checked what the current 'Strict' terms are, I see the page I've posted.  It's really odd.  Why are we seeing something different in Australia and why is it both inconsistent with the other policies and also logically impossibility to comply with it?

[Gavin-and-Jo0]

We are in Perth and ours is the same as @Louise0.  Someone must have screwed up as it just doesn't make sense.

[Michael479]

The cancellation policy of airbnb is extremly guest friendly. They don't follow the host rules. I had my listing set on moderate which requires a 5 day notice for full refund and a guest got back a full refund with a 2 day cancellation notice and I didn't have any say about it.

[David126]

@Louise0

I can not find that, perhaps the new intern has been playing around?

[Marit-Anne0]

@Louise0

They are probably rolling out their new cancellation policies - starting with Australia.  

[Lisa293]

@Louise0

Hi Louise,

I called airbnb and asked them about this.  They said that Condition A is the current policy and Condition B is the policy coming into effect January 2017.  I guess this is to segregate who has which policies in effect for bookings that come through prior to January 2017 for future stay dates.

They have already put this into effect in Italy but it will not be in Australia until January.

The way we have gotten around this is to block peak period dates on airbnb and just list on other sites during high demand periods.  This way we can have the cancellation policy that we want and a security deposit that we can actually access or more importantly a security deposit that guests know we can access....

Why not have the better booking terms if these peak dates will book anyway on a more host friendly site.  Someone did share the new policies but it did not sink in as much as seeing your screen shot.  Thanks for posting this, Lisa

[Louise0]

Condition B makes Condition A nonsensical, and vice versa.  Why on earth they put both on a diagram intended to explain the policies is a mystery.

Also, if Condition B are the new terms to apply next year, then they'll have to be changed.   Hasn't anyone noticed that if a booking is for only one day, the new 'at check-in' policy for Strict gives Hosts only 50% of the nightly rate for a same day cancellation.  Flexible and Moderate would at least allow the Host to keep the first (or in this case ONLY) night's fee.

Anyway, I just checked the FAQ again and it appears to have been amended so at least now it makes some sense.

[Lisa293]

@Louise0

Sorry - disregard this I misread.  My mistake = sorry.

[Robert78]

Ludicrous. Must surely be an error. If this will be the state of events going forward, I'm delisiting. No joke.

But what constitutes Condition A from Condition B? 

Incidentally, what are these "Super Strict" policies?

[Lisa293]

@Robert78

For super strict I also asked on the phone today - you must have a minimum of 50 properties and it is by invitation only.  20 or 25 won't cut it.  50 is the line in the sand.

PS Thanks @David126

[Robert78]

@Lisa293 So effectively, Airbnb have now become nothing more than an aggregator for hotels. Got it.

It's interesting, because over the last month or two I've spent on this forum, I'm seeing a theme: essentially, Airbnb have devolved into a mainstream provider like Agoda, Expedia, Travelocity, et al. The number of hosts that complain about lack of customer service, declining page views, issues with payouts etc. are ALL symptomatic of a sea change which is taking place with this company, namely, that individual hosts, the original breadwinners, are disposable commodities. I'm not naivè enough to think that corporate America really give a &*$% about us, and I'm sure Kucher and Gywenth will blow all the necessary bubbles, and the attendees at the LA Open will all ooooh and aaaaah at the spectacle.

The original ethos this company protrayed itself as is extinct. 

Every man (or woman) for himself! 

Via con Dios, $ trumps all!

[Lisa293]

@Robert78

In reply to your question - hard to say.  I am of the opinion that they are at the stage that they should be separating entire listings from home share listings before they lose every shred of what their concept was.  I think that different rules and policies should apply to each and it may even help with catering for the differences in the variety of laws they are trying to adapt to at the moment.  

Yes, they are effectively becoming another regular online booking site with "groupies" from all the hype.  Make no mistake, they can definitely make money for you and their popularity for the moment will only continue to rise - the trick my friend is to figure out how to be sure you are making money from them...  Copacetic they call it.

[Robert78]

I'm totally copacetic, and I'm earning dividends. That's why I'm here. I don't see too many hosts that are getting gamed or aren't astute enough to play the game posting comments here for the good of the community. In fact I see the opposite. A fortunate few are commenting regularly for the benefit of the rest. Is it altruism? Maybe.